On 4/2/23 15:03, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
On 4/2/23 17:13, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
8943 AGAINST
I don't want to give Janet some radiance
for something that hasn't gotten anyone
any radiance yet.
Except you agree that it's broken?
Of course it's broken, yet no one has even exploited it yet.
What fun would it be if even this small act of chaos
cannot be exploited for the smallest of gains?
I wanted to use the sabotage stone on this... >:(
8944 AGAINST
I don't know what this does
or what problem it 'fixes'
and Janet doesn't need more radiance
for another radiance win.
CFJ 4017.
My understanding is that CFJ 4017 ruled that
the rules text does in fact represent this
result, so this is a redundant proposal then?
